• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps

Status
Not open for further replies.

SwiftDeath

Member
May 31, 2013
23,626
0
0
I'm always surprised when people blame the ESRAM. I think it's getting blamed for things where I think it isn't even the biggest factor.

This boils down to GPU strength, pure and simple. Xbox One could have 64 or even 128MB of ESRAM, and I think the result would be the exact same here. The stronger GPU is always going to win at the exact same resolution. The devs should have opted to lower the resolution to 900p on the xbox one version to improve performance imo.

You do realize that Tim Lottes, Creator of FXAA [an anti-aliasing technique used widely] predicted almost all of this more than a year prior to the consoles launched based off of just the specs?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510076

ESram was the biggest problem he had with the XB1 and higher res/framerates
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
660
I'm always surprised when people blame the ESRAM. I think it's getting blamed for things where I think it isn't even the biggest factor.

This boils down to GPU strength, pure and simple. Xbox One could have 64 or even 128MB of ESRAM, and I think the result would be the exact same here. The stronger GPU is always going to win at the exact same resolution. The devs should have opted to lower the resolution to 900p on the xbox one version to improve performance imo.

Maybe a drop in Res would give them negligible framerate returns due to where the bottlenecks of their rendering are coming from. Also, ESRAM is a known hard-bottleneck. It prevents a lot in terms of high res high framerate actually.
 

slapnuts

Junior Member
Apr 24, 2013
1,631
1
430
Chicago, IL USA
I get the excitement but why are people acting like its a constant 60fps.

I can't speak for others but personally i was pretty impressed because i run a 3770k@4.6ghz and a Sapphire 7970 Ghz Edition and my PC performed 1080p at an "almost" constant 60fps. To see the PS4 run this game at almost equal to my machine definitely impressed me. I guess this makes me more excited for future PS4 games when developers truly start to harness its power.
 

Nags

Banned
Feb 16, 2013
3,949
0
0
Boom, statistics from Perkel:

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

Can someone please translate this into DBZ?
 
Apr 20, 2005
3,986
8
1,460
I can't speak for others but personally i was pretty impressed because i run a 3770k@4.6ghz and a Sapphire 7970 Ghz Edition and my PC performed 1080p at an "almost" constant 60fps. To see the PS4 run this game at almost equal to my machine definitely impressed me. I guess this makes me more excited for future PS4 games when developers truly start to harness its power.

Exactly. For the people who have played this on pc and know what the requirements are to make this game run at a constant 60 fps and to see that the ps4 is capable of such performance is HIGHLY impressive, even more so with it being a $400 system.
 

Fredrik

Member
Jun 27, 2005
9,237
2,774
1,650
I get the excitement but why are people acting like its a constant 60fps.
Because unlocked 60fps on PS4 vs unlocked 30fps on X1 is a major difference. I'm guessing the letdown of having the framerate unlocked will show itself later when people get to try it.
 

RickyRozay

Member
Mar 23, 2013
1,225
0
555
excellent news. Now I just want to know when we will start seeing reviews roll out. I'm guessing either this weekend or monday?
 

Forceatowulf

G***n S**n*bi
Jun 18, 2006
18,066
0
0
Where the games are.
Well here you go, to everybody that said no way to this game at $60... "unless they hit 60FPS which won't happen"

Now what?
As I said earlier in the thread, i was one of these people, and I am now buying it. It's even given me reason to push forward on buying my next gen console in fact. Was gonna wait until early March... thinking about getting it around the day of my tax refund which is Feb 5'th.

60 FPS gaming is huge to me. I'm not a PC guy so when shit like this happens on consoles my eyes light up.
 

viveks86

Member
Sep 12, 2013
15,859
0
485
Already said this, but this is far worse than 720p or 900p vs 1080p imo

Both 1080p with the console with the weaker gpu practically getting a 30fps version (and potentially decreased graphics quality or effects), something I think is far more significant than one being 720p and the other being 1080p, is a trend I hope dies with Tomb Raider lol. Not sure what they were thinking.

I don't think most xbox one owners would want games gimped to achieve 1080p. 30fps vs 60fps is, to me, a bigger deal than 720p vs 1080p or 900p vs 1080p. I don't expect others to agree, but that's my take.

The devs should have opted to lower the resolution to 900p on the xbox one version to improve performance imo.

Dat determination! :p
 

Bgamer90

Banned
Mar 20, 2007
20,961
0
0
Seemingly? How often did the 360 run at twice the resolution or twice the framerate of the PS3?

Was mainly stating "seemingly" since this is still the early point of the gen. I don't know how things will play out.

And this is the first case of frame rate difference on the (now) current gen when it comes to a multiplat. I remember EA sports games (e.g.: Madden) being 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on Xbox 360 but that was only for one year. So yeah, I said that since I can't say for sure. Things can change over time.
 

dragonelite

Member
Mar 9, 2010
12,131
0
0
Holy shit!!

Oh and random thought that has undoubtedly been said many times...
why not just have gfx options in these damn games?
TressFX off! Just like I did for the PC version to hit 60fps.

That is the one thing most console gamers complain about if it comes to pc gaming.
 

Jack cw

Member
Mar 14, 2006
8,680
0
0
Bavaria
I'm always surprised when people blame the ESRAM. I think it's getting blamed for things where I think it isn't even the biggest factor.

This boils down to GPU strength, pure and simple. Xbox One could have 64 or even 128MB of ESRAM, and I think the result would be the exact same here. The stronger GPU is always going to win at the exact same resolution. The devs should have opted to lower the resolution to 900p on the xbox one version to improve performance imo.
Well, it actually is because the framebuffer for 1080p at 60fps with AA is way more than 32MB at this point, its around 40MB. Killzones g-buffer is around 50MB, so yeah the ESRAM is holding the system back (and of course the weaker GPU) and its a bottleneck but without it, this system would have been even worse.

If you reply, please avoid a textwall. thx.
 

SwiftDeath

Member
May 31, 2013
23,626
0
0
Was mainly stating "seemingly" since this is still the early point of the gen. I don't know how things will play out.

And this is the first case of frame rate difference on the (now) current gen when it comes to a multiplat. I remember EA sports games (e.g.: Madden) being 30 FPS on PS3 but 60 FPS on Xbox 360 but that was only for one year. So yeah, I said that since I can't say for sure. Things can change over time.

This is the first difference where devs are likely shooting for different standards [60fps on PS4, 30fps on XB1]

Digital Foundry showed that objectively BF4 not only ran at a higher res on PS4 but had a significantly more stable framerate with less dips
 

NullPointer

Member
May 4, 2006
44,302
3
0
San Francisco
Oh and random thought that has undoubtedly been said many times...
why not just have gfx options in these damn games?
More stuff to test? Implications to multiplayer balance? Degradation of the idea of console simplicity along with the Apple "it just works" mantra?

There's something nice in knowing that the devs are targeting one spec for each console.

Otherwise you get stuff like GT6 where you have to downgrade performance to 720p to get the game to play at a better than average but still not a continuous silky smooth 60fps even though everybody will talk about 1080p/60fps and all the trailers will show impossible bullshot resolution videos.
 

slapnuts

Junior Member
Apr 24, 2013
1,631
1
430
Chicago, IL USA
Exactly. For the people who have played this on pc and know what the requirements are to make this game run at a constant 60 fps and to see that the ps4 is capable of such performance is HIGHLY impressive, even more so with it being a $400 system.

And i did not even mention my 7970 has a pretty bad ass overclock ;)
 

mjontrix

Member
Jul 2, 2012
1,789
0
475
Can someone please translate this into DBZ?

XB1 - That weird SSJ2 form that Trunks used when he got fully bulked but slow as hell.
PS4 - SSJ2 Gohan

Basically twice as powerful and faster.

The ESRAM is holding back Trunks (XB1) even though he's gotten more powerful than before (Pre upclock).
 

Bad_Boy

time to take my meds
Jun 15, 2006
23,816
1
1,165
I wonder though... If wonder if this sells decently, will it give other devs incentive to port their ps3/360 titles.

Lord knows we need that thou and gets5 love.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
18,827
12,426
2,110
Lazy devs argument switches sides this gen?

Wow.

PS3 did not have maybe the best GPU of the two overall (fixed partition of vertex shader ALU's vs Pixel Shader ALU's, some non clear issue with vertex processing throughput, etc...), not the easiest RAM setup to use (split memory pool, potentially more bandwidth for the GPU, but with plenty of side effects), and a CPU with a pretty steep learning curve...

Still, there was potential yet to be unlocked performance in that architecture which could push it above the Xbox 360, the CELL processor itself offered a LOT of performance once tackled properly and funnily enough the kind of thinking it required was exactly where high performance cores and programmers handling them have been going (well, minus not having HW managed caches)...

What big yet to be unlocked performance advantages does the Xbox One present in this case?
 

Kura

Banned
Dec 8, 2013
298
0
0
So here we have the 50% extra TFLOPS power from PS4 doing its job with 50% extra fps.
It seems like 1.86 vs 1.2 TFLOPS were not just numbers that doesnt matter at all.
 

viveks86

Member
Sep 12, 2013
15,859
0
485
More stuff to test? Implications to multiplayer balance? Degradation of the idea of console simplicity along with the Apple "it just works" mantra?

There's something nice in knowing that the devs are targeting one spec for each console.

Otherwise you get stuff like GT6 where you have to downgrade performance to 720p to get the game to play at a better than average but still not a continuous silky smooth 60fps even though everybody will talk about 1080p/60fps and all the trailers will show impossible bullshot resolution videos.

This. I don't want options. Options are for PCs :|
 

DemonNite

Formerly 'K Monkey'
Apr 15, 2007
2,904
0
1,360
How long ago did you hear this? I just want to know how long has this been true for this game.

I caught wind of this before console launches when a few 3rd party devs were saying the same things.

Running code on the PS4 by raw power alone would already be better than the Xbox and required a lot of optimisation.

If this remains true then there will be more of the same. I hear the rock is not steady on another project.
 

TheCloser

Banned
Mar 8, 2013
1,974
0
375
No, it really doesn't look very last gen at all. It just isn't the most graphically intensive next gen game, but there's nothing wrong with that. Titanfall looks quite good for a source title, a lot better than any source title I've ever seen. I think the geometry, art, particle effects and physics all look fairly solid. Titanfall is far from an ugly game.

That aside, we've been prepared for a while now that it possibly won't be 1080p, which I don't really have an issue with, because getting the performance right is important. I just hope it isn't a jag fest. That'd really detract from what I think is an otherwise pretty attractive looking game. Plus, it's a multiplayer title. I don't need the most mindblowing visuals. If I want to have my mind blown, I'll put in Ryse. Titanfall I expect will be a pretty solid release all around, and the leaked footage as of late has made me a whole lot more excited.



I think he is. :p

You are entitled to your opinion but i respectfully disagree. The art direction is last gen, the graphics(geometry, lighting, foliage, lack of destruction, textures) are last gen and most importantly, the gameplay introduces nothing new. I watched it and was completely bored out of my mind. No recoil shooting, stupid bots, lack of destruction, lack of innovation are some of the things that are bothering me about this game. To me, it feels like EA thought to themselves, "how can we make a call of duty game without getting sued by activision for copying cod?" There is nothing about this game that looks remotely interesting. How can you have titans firing rockets into a wall and the wall is not even damaged. Taking down titans is not even dynamic. When they first presented the game, they made it seem like you could shoot the arms and it would fall off reducing mobility etc. Its not dynamic but a scripted/canned sequence. This is the same problem COD suffers from, them amazing wow moments are finite because everything in the game is basically scripted and not dynamic. There is nothing you see in COD gameplay montages that you haven't seen before. Titanfall will quickly run into the same problem. Anyway, do enjoy the game but the lack of a campaign killed my interest in this game and the poor multiplayer gameplay and graphics have only reiterated my decision not to purchase this game. On a graphics level, this game is not more impressive than Black ops 2 on pc at max settings. They are really doing nothing special. Its less resource intensive when things baked/canned. While others are moving towards dynamic, living, breathing worlds, respawn continues to use last gen techniques in the creation of their games. Static environments, baked lighting, lack of destruction, lack of innovation, etc....
 
Aug 22, 2013
3,313
2
0
I caught wind of this before console launches when a few 3rd party devs were saying the same things.

Running code on the PS4 by raw power alone would already be better than the Xbox and required a lot of optimisation.

If this remains true then there will be more of the same. I hear the rock is not steady on another project.

Next Gen Batman game by rocksteady confirmed?
 

Sword Of Doom

Member
Aug 18, 2013
11,594
3
0
Well here you go, to everybody that said no way to this game at $60... "unless they hit 60FPS which won't happen"

Now what?

Don't people buy GOTY editions all the time? Aren't those always full price upon release? I don't get how this is any different
 

slapnuts

Junior Member
Apr 24, 2013
1,631
1
430
Chicago, IL USA

I really encourage people to read Mr. Lottes discussion on PS4 hardware. This is my type of folk..an unbiased PC guy that tells it like it is and gives credit when credit is due. In thise case he talks about the nice advantages of PS4 architecture. Great read and thanks for reposting this.

Edit Damn the page is down but the link still has some good portions of the article
 

mjontrix

Member
Jul 2, 2012
1,789
0
475
I wonder though... If wonder if this sells decently, will it give other devs incentive to port their ps3/360 titles.

Lord knows we need that thou and gets5 love.

Definitely getting ports - it's nearly free money - just port the existing assets over with a new coat of paint and increase the resolution on the text and voila! Probably less than a few million to port over if that; depending on the game and how much low-level optimization (for the PS3/360) was used and if there's any PC code available to be used.

Ultra Super Saiyan :)

That's the one!
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,612
2
0
I caught wind of this before console launches when a few 3rd party devs were saying the same things.

Running code on the PS4 by raw power alone would already be better than the Xbox and required a lot of optimisation.

If this remains true then there will be more of the same. I hear the rock is not steady on another project.

My guess is Watchdogs?
 

Sword Of Doom

Member
Aug 18, 2013
11,594
3
0
Well isn't it pretty much anecdotal fact that PS4 is significantly more easy to develop for than Xbox One? Certainly sounds like a major contributing factor to me.

Yes and it also a fact that the PS4 has more rendering power. So put the two together
 
Status
Not open for further replies.